| Title |
Keystone mutualism strengthens top–down effects by recruiting large-bodied ants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-017-4047-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert E. Clark, Michael S. Singer |
| Abstract |
Determining the impacts of mutualistic interactions and predator diversity on food webs are two important goals in community ecology. In this study, we examined how predator community variation mediates the strength of top-down effects in the presence and absence of mutualistic interactions. We examined the impacts of predatory ant species that simultaneously prey on leaf-chewing herbivores (Lepidoptera) and engage in food-for-protection mutualisms with sap-feeding herbivores (Hemiptera) in the lower canopy of Connecticut forests. In this 2-year study, we examined three hypothetical mechanisms by which mutualisms can alter the top-down effects of ants: (1) sap feeders increase ant abundance, thus strengthening predatory effects; (2) sap feeders increase the relative abundance of a species that has stronger predatory effects; and (3) changes to predator diversity (species richness) are caused by sap feeders mediating top-down effects of the ant community. Experiments revealed that host plants occupied by sap feeders favored large-bodied ant species in the genus Camponotus, but there were no changes to community-wide ant abundance or ant species richness. Fitting predictions of predation strength based on the functional trait of body size, large-bodied Camponotus suppressed caterpillars and reduced leaf herbivory. This work shows that the ant-hemipteran mutualism, which has been characterized as a keystone interaction, can generate strong top-down effects on leaf-chewing herbivores and herbivory via increasing the relative abundance of species with functional traits relevant to predation, such as body size. Therefore, the emergence of specific ants as keystone predators in a community can be contingent upon their mutualism with sap-feeding Hemiptera. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 62% |
| Environmental Science | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,585
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,600
of 442,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#57
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.